- 57 -
period 2002 through 2004, the settlement officer did not abuse
the settlement officer’s discretion in agreeing with the second
offer specialist that petitioner’s June 24, 2005 offer-in-
compromise should be rejected and in rejecting that offer. That
is because part 5.8.1.1.3(3) of the IRM (Sept. 1, 2005) requires
that generally “a Doubt as to Collectibility * * * offer amount
must equal or exceed a taxpayers [sic] reasonable collection
potential (RCP) in order to be considered for acceptance.” As
explained below, even if the period 1998 through 2004 or the
period 1993 through 2004 were used to determine petitioner’s
average monthly wage income and the “future income” component of
petitioner’s RCP, petitioner’s RCP nonetheless would exceed the
amount (i.e., $139,776) that petitioner offered in petitioner’s
June 24, 2005 offer-in-compromise to compromise, inter alia,
petitioner’s unpaid liabilities for 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1996,
1997, and 2002.
Part 5.8.1.1.3 of the IRM (Sept. 1, 2005) provides:
5.8.1.1.3 * * * Policy
(1) Policy Statement P-5-100 states:
The Service will accept an offer in compromise
when it is unlikely that the tax liability can be
collected in full and the amount offered reason-
ably reflects collection potential. An offer in
compromise is a legitimate alternative to declar-
ing a case currently not collectible or to a pro-
tracted installment agreement. The goal is to
achieve collection of what is potentially collect-
ible at the earliest possible time and at the
least cost to the Government.
Page: Previous 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008